US diplomat: Recognizing Russia as state sponsor of terrorism could be counterproductive

The United States currently does not consider it useful to designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, but supports further restrictions on Russia in the form of sanctions and export restrictions.

Ambassador Julianne Smith, U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO, said this during a special online briefing, Ukrinform reports, referring to the Voice of America.

“Certainly from the U.S. perspective, I think you’ve heard President Biden and others across the administration comment on this. […] And the feeling in Washington is that this really isn’t necessary at the moment, and, in fact, could be perhaps counterproductive in the sense that it could inhibit or hinder our ability, for example, to either get humanitarian assistance into Ukraine or some of the grain out of Ukraine,” Smith said, answering questions from journalists.

She said that for that reason, the focus of the United States, in working closely with many partners and allies around the world, has been to turn to sanctions and to identify ways in which additional sanctions can be imposed in order to put that added pressure on Putin and his government, the regime in Moscow; “but also to look for ways to really apply pressure on their economy and, in fact, prohibit the Russian military from advancing or building new capabilities in the wake of this war.”

“So the focus there has been a combination of sanctions, export controls, et cetera,” Smith said.

https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-polytics/3624020-us-diplomat-recognizing-russia-as-state-sponsor-of-terrorism-could-be-counterproductive.html

11 comments

  1. “Certainly from the U.S. perspective, I think you’ve heard President Biden and others across the administration comment on this. […] And the feeling in Washington is that this really isn’t necessary at the moment, and, in fact, could be perhaps counterproductive in the sense that it could inhibit or hinder our ability, for example, to either get humanitarian assistance into Ukraine or some of the grain out of Ukraine,” Smith said, answering questions from journalists.

    What a feeble excuse. Just how many atrocities does the terrorist state need to commit before the old fool in the WH actually does something to help Ukraine win this war?

    • Yes. Hopelessly feeble.
      Sanctions can hurt the putinazis, but only if they are ferocious.
      The questions that the pacifist Biden administration needs to ask are :
      What sanctions can be imposed that will force a 180° turn?
      The ones that cause mass starvation, rioting and a RSM are the only ones worth contemplating.
      The putinazis haven’t even been kicked out fully from SWIFT!
      Apple : we were told their devices won’t work anymore, yet we saw a pic of senior nazi Lavrov with his iPhone and Apple Watch!
      Credit/debit cards ; are all western ones all rendered unusable? I doubt it somehow.
      Travel : putinazi vermin are still traveling in Europe and North America; no doubt staying in 5• hotels and eating lobsters.
      Why haven’t the myriad western corporations still trading in putlerstan been hammered with a war profits tax?
      Why hasn’t the criminal putinazi cash stashed in Switzerland and other immoral countries still not been seized and sent to Ukraine?

      • I do get the rationale: if you mark them as terrorists and not as a state you can not make agreements with them, such as a grain deal. At least not legally.

        But still I disagree. The administration shouldn’t play by the same rules that have failed to prevent Russia from becoming rogue.

        If you have a conflict with Norway I would indeed think legality matters, as your “enemy” would care too.

        But if you are dealing with some terrorist, we shouldn’t bother about some legal bullcrap. The U.S. also made a deal with the Taliban, so why would it matter if you make a deal with Russia even if it is a designated terrorist?

        The U.S. is the world’s most powerful state. Let others play by their rules instead of the other way around.

        • Indeed! Russia should be declared a terrorist state. First, because it is, and second, because it would utterly isolate them on the world stage. If the UN follows on, then, I think, they would be obligated to expel them. It can’t be too soon for that.

          I disagree on the US being the world’s most powerful state. The US is being hollowed out for the same reason Russia is, corruption. If the US is put to the test, it is questionable how it would perform. The military is in a defacto drawdown because of political stupidity and requiring the clot shot. No sensible young man is joining unless there are no other options, and joining may be an act of suicide.

    • Sanctions…I’m already tired of talking about sanctions. Putler doesn’t care how much pain he inflicts on his own people. The hardest sanctions applied to the Horde were American exports of energy and the Feeble Fool reversed them and helped fund Putler’s war machine.
      If they want to move the dial on Putler you have to drive him out of the oil and gas market and for God’s sake suspend their veto on the UNSC. As the UN currently stands it is perfectly OK for a P5 member to commit genocide so what good is the fucking UN charter?

  2. “The United States currently does not consider it useful to designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, but supports further restrictions on Russia in the form of sanctions and export restrictions.”
    ~I would think the useful part would be to show united resolve and close loopholes for third party dealings with mafialand. Not only would it be a PITA for those still dealing with them it would further discourage anyone wanting to do business with them.

    “…the feeling in Washington is that this really isn’t necessary at the moment, and, in fact, could be perhaps counterproductive in the sense that it could inhibit or hinder our ability, for example, to either get humanitarian assistance into Ukraine or some of the grain out of Ukraine,” Smith said, answering questions from journalists.”
    ~Seriously how the F is this going to hinder anyone giving humanitarian aid to Ukraine!!! As for the grain out of Ukraine, entire RF Black Sea fleet should be sunk, sea and air cover should be provided by UK, US, and Turkey. rashists should be removed from any part of inspections as they are delaying the process and only have nefarious intentions.

    • Theoretically it does, as marking them a terrorist state does have legal consequences.

      For example, if the Red Cross deals with the Russian government to get access to certain places or rents a truck from Russia to deliver aid.

      Also you would lose embassies as Russian diplomats will lose diplomatic status, so to whom will you talk to arrange the grain deal? You can no longer speak to Lavrov in person as he will be a terrorist.

      I still think it is worth this potential (and probably mostly theoretical) hassle. Russia will be even more toxic to investors and diplomatic power of Russia will significantly reduced.

      Also it will be a great moral blow as the Russian government will be on the same list as Al-Qaeda and Daesh.

      • ruZZia should have no part in the grain deal anyways. Also I seriously doubt Red Cross is desperate enough to try to use a rashist truck for Ukrainian aid. Any aid on a rashist truck would either be unfit for consumption, stolen, blown up, blocked, or a ruse for moving weapons. Close all ruZZian embassies, they aren’t worth talking to anyways.

        • I am just giving an example. It can also be that they book a flight to Moscow, buy bottles of water, anything. But also supporting Navalny or independent journalists.

          If you have any transactions with Afghanistan right now a bank will very likely block your bank account. If that happens too with Russia, it will create difficulty for NGO’s.

          Still, I think these are issues that they can overcome, but I think these are the kind of practical issues they mean.

  3. “US diplomat: Recognizing Russia as state sponsor of terrorism could be counterproductive”

    What productive aspects exist NOW, not being a state sponsor of terrorist? I don’t see the logic.
    Mafia land IS a state sponsor of terrorist. It has been for quite some time. Business dealings and false diplomacy have prevented the truth from coming out in the open. This is all so totally disgusting! So is the attitude of this administration in this regard!

What is your opinion?